Flat organizational structure is arguably best suited to respond to complex and turbulent environments facing organizations today (Burns & Stalker, 1994). This bold statement came from observation by these two researchers who in the 1950s spent time in a British manufacturing firm. This firm particularly adopted novel approaches to management and production, giving only title to managing director but entirely avoided defining roles and functions for its overall employees. Ongoing modification of goals and procedures through weekly team meetings are done to assess emergent situations and tackle problems that rise at the moment. Regular weekly meetings at this firm resulted in participative act by its employees to solve problems and collaborate at the discussion. Hence, problems are solved by collective effort instead of one’s authority. Burns and Stalker concluded that there are two ideal organizational types. First type is the traditional mechanistic bureaucracy and the second is the alternative types which are more responsive to environment and less hierarchical. They named this second types organic structure. They also added, mechanistic organization and organic organization is needed at different kind of environment. Mechanistic bureaucracy is more fit in stable environment but on the opposite site, organic organization is more suited to environments which are turbulent and full of changes.
In addition to Worthy’s argument (1950), Burns and Stalker (1994) underlying a new organizational structure and management methodology which can be considered as groundbreaking and different than the common practices at organization which emphasized on routinization, specialization and conformity. These researchers believed and suggested th...
... middle of paper ...
...tion to face increasing fragmentation among the workforce. The other important critic that worth to look out for is the one that Alvesson (1995) had pointed out on the issue of sustainability of flat organizations. Alvesson argued that flat organizations are not sustainable over the long term as size and specialized functions emerge.
Growth of an organization tends to bends flat structure that had previously implemented within the organization into more bureaucratic structure if roles are differentiated and roles are specialized (Astley, 1985). Flat organizations is generally possible only in smaller organizations or individual units within larger organizations. As organizations grows and reach critical size, organization can retain a streamlined structure but often times cannot keep a completely flat structure as they were before without impacting productivity.
Secondly, CP should incorporate a more flexible environment using an organic structure while incorporating a horizontal approach that will allow them to delegate authority and responsibility. The organic structure would require CP to “depend heavily on an informal structure of employee networks. Astute managers are keenly aware of these interactions, and they encourage employees to work more as teammates than as subordinates who take orders from the boss”
Top-level managers in bureaucratic organizational structures exercise a great deal of control over organizational strategy decisions, which is ideal for business owners with a command and control style. As for the disadvantages, bureaucratic structures can discourage creativity and innovation throughout the organization. No matter how ingenious a business owner is, it is virtually impossible for a single individual to generate the range of strategic ideas possible in a large, interdisciplinary
...e possibility for cross-fertilization between the existing paradigms exists. Perhaps, the best that can be done is to establish frameworks in which multiple paradigms provide different viewpoints from which to examine the complexities of organizations.
The Foodcorp is a big organization of more than twenty thousand employees. The structure should help the organization achieved established goals and objectives. Therefore, the appropriate structural design is very crucial. The performance and the efficiency of the organization can be enhanced through specialization and appropriate division of labor. Foodcorp used a matrix structure but the management style of Foodcorp seemed to be a one boss arrangement. Information and decisions directly comes from the top. As we can see from the chart, group members report and communicate primarily with president. In my opinion, this style will work best in a simple organization, but not for a big organization like Foodcorp. If it relies too much on the president, the employees might face with many problems such as delays and bad decisions. Finally, Foodcorp may suffer from its structure. In my ...
From the perspective of a management, flexible arrangement would not be as desirable as a structured arrangement since it would require more efforts to control and monitor. In mechanistic structures where the structures are highly formalized and centralized, innovation would decreases as communication often follow a chain of command. However, managers would be able to more effectively control and manage the productivity of their employees as each job has a rigid set of standards and guideline. Managers and the top executive would also be able to make important decisions without having to consult with the lower levels, ensuring that management has complete control over the everyday operation of an organization. On the other hand, a flexible arrangement would be more desirable from an employee 's perspective as it would enable employees to display their creativity not have more freedom in their daily work tasks. Working in a flexible arrangement, such as in a flat structure, employees have reported that they feel satisfied with their job as it has enabled them to obtain self-actualization. Without rigid rules and regulations to follow, employees have the ability to try new strategies and ideas, causing innovation to increase within a company. Meanwhile, productivity would decrease from an employee 's perspective if a company decides to enforce a formalized structure because the employees in such settings tend to feel less motivated and satisfied in their job, causing their
Organizational structure is one of the three key organizational assets that could contribute to the effectiveness of operations of any organization (Zheng, Yan and Mclean 2009) It is joined together by different flows of information, decision processes, hierarchy of authority, specialization and working materials. (Enz 2009; Mintzberg 1980) Furthermore, it also determines the operating workflow, control of information, decision-making in the organization and the line authority (Mintzberg 1980). The facets of the organizational structure, the relationships that exist within it, and how the business processes (Bititci et al 2011) are controlled, determine the managerial style that should be utilized in addition to the strategies the organization could implement. Going further, a company’s organizational design and the parts that constitute it are seen as a contributing factor to superior performance, which ultimately provide an organization with competitive advantage over its competitors. (Enz 2009; Zheng, Yang, and Mclean 2009)
In any organization, effective management is difficult to achieve and maintain. Analyzing organizations from multiple perspectives allows people to better understand the system and potential issues involved and to identify solutions. Bolman and Deal utilize a four-frame approach focusing on the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame.1
To demonstrate the totality and the need for a holistic approach, below is an illustration showing the pressure on a large organization (Werther & Chandler, 2006)
Management of today is faced with challenges to exploit their workforce into a cash cow of untapped and unlimited resources in diversity and inclusion as in the paradigms in “True to myself” case and the “good-old-boy” team environment. Organizations ability to restructure and leverage resources at its disposal is not within grasp of managements conceptions. Today being an advanced economy, the “good-old-boy” organizations exercise, and continue to support philosophies, to exploit top-down authority, standardization, specialism, probability, and zabernism as their mode of control of profit to the stakeholder
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
PRIMIS MNO 6202: Managing Organizations. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the ' Reprint of the book. McGraw-Hill Education, 2013.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Some critics argue that the above statement is not true because nowadays organization is easy to change. They build an organization with a flexible structure and system so they can easily change and beside they can also rewarded people to embrace change. However, the statement stated by Lawler, E.E and Worley, C.G is definitely true about organizational change because the way of changing organization require an examination of fit between the organization’s strategic intentions and its structure (Graetz et al. 2002 p.195). Management systems are design for achieving its goals and it is difficult when remaining goals but changing the management systems. Jay Galbraith (cited in Goodman, E. 2011, p.242), a world leader of organization and team development, also states: ‘Every organization is perfectly designed to get the results it is currently achieving’. Moreover human resources are the most im...
Miles, R. (1975) Theories of Management: Implications for Organisational Behaviour and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Management plays a significant role in how business operates. The diversity of approaches to the theoretical and practical background of management has come up with several versions of what is meant by such key words as management and organization. The academia views expressed in relation to management theories take a different role than that prescribed to managers. There has not been any concrete definition of management even though the classic definition of Henri fayol still remains in contention to be the preferred choice after eighty years. In the context of what is required I would like to elaborate on the following journals.